New Delhi [India], July 23 (ANI): Delhi’sKarkardooma courthas recently, in the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Actcase, allowed a widow to live in thematrimonial homealong with her young child. This residence was occupied by the in-laws and the woman together with her husband while he was still living.
She is said to have been forced to leave the family home in 2018. Her spouse passed away in November 2015. She claimed she faced physical abuse and was subjected to demands for dowry from her in-laws.
A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC-Mahila Court) named Sonika allowed the complainant woman to stay in the shared marital home with her young child on July 19, 2025.
The court stated, “Therefore, the petitioner is free to live with her young child in the mentioned shared home, and the respondents are prohibited from removing the petitioner without following proper legal procedures.”
Nevertheless, the court has refused to provide support from her in-laws due to the lack of any shared property or business between her husband and the other in-laws.
While addressing the matter of maintenance, the court noted that the petitioner had not provided any documents to demonstrate that any of the respondents had shared property or business with the deceased husband of the complainant.
“In the absence of any shared or coparcenary property, the respondents cannot be held responsible for maintaining the petitioner,” stated the JMFC in the order issued on July 19.
The court also observed that the request for financial support was not favored in the application for residency.
Advocate Manish Bhadauria, representing the complainant, stated that in August 2018, the respondents forced the petitioner to leave the shared home while dressed in clothes.
“Thus, it is requested that the current application be approved and the applicant be given the benefit of maintenance and housing,” the lawyer requested.
On the other hand, Praveen Goswami, the advocate representing the respondents, argued that no cruelty was ever inflicted by the respondents.
It was also argued that the petitioner did not mention a specific date or time when she was harassed by any of the respondents, and the claims made in the petition along with the current application are broad and general in scope. (ANI)
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
